|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.
This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.
If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.
To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Elli | 156 | 2 | 0 | 99 | Open | 16:53, 7 June 2024 | 3 days, 6 hours | no | report |
It is 10:04:18 on June 4, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
Can I have my bit back please?
Please see [1] there is already agreement that there is no bar to my resuming the tools when I'm ready. I need to be able to see some deleted articles at DRV and I'm feeling much better so I'm ready to go. Spartaz Humbug! 19:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK with me. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Done MBisanz talk 21:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, I support this. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW his anti-policy deletion and protection of his own talk page, and rude response to notification of a deletion review suggest to me that he is unsuited to be an admin. He has no greater need to see delete articles than any other editor at DRV. DuncanHill (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any diffs to back up your claims? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW his anti-policy deletion and protection of his own talk page, and rude response to notification of a deletion review suggest to me that he is unsuited to be an admin. He has no greater need to see delete articles than any other editor at DRV. DuncanHill (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- See [2] for the logs shewing anti-policy deletion and protection. DuncanHill (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) See [3] for insult directed at admins who objected. DuncanHill (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding re-bitting, the question is not whether the admin was in harmony with the universe at the time they gave up the bit, but whether they gave up the bit in order to avoid or terminate proceedings with the realistic possibility of de-bitting. Based on the facts presented, there was not an active or proposed RFC/RFAR/etc that had the realistic likelihood of Spartaz being de-bitted, hence the re-bitting. MBisanz talk 20:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- I just have the terribly unfashionable attitude that people who abuse admin tools while pretending to retire shouldn't be handed them back on a plate without reference to the community. DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read WP:CRAT and then realise that you're in the wrong venue Duncan. It's not complex. It is not within the remit of bureaucrats to personally decide if admin tools have been abused. They follow the will of the community as evidenced by RFC/U's - ANI reports - ARBCOM etc. If there are no community / ARMCOM /Jimbo reasons not to re-grant then they re-grant. That's the end of it. Pedro : Chat 21:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not allowed to judge if admin abuse occurred though. I can only judge if the person resigned to avoid or end an inquiry into their tool usage or some other behavioral aspect. As best as I can tell, when Spartaz resigned the tools previously, there was no active discussion that could have resulted in his tool removal and since he resigned his tools, he has not done anything blatantly in breach of behavior policies (socking, NLT, etc) that would provide a clear enough rationale to avoid re-bitting. Only Arbcom has the discretion to decide when to remove the admin tools for admin abuse or otherwise and the crat position is merely a functionary that processes paperwork in this situation. MBisanz talk 22:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- WP:ARBCOM is down the hall on the left Duncan. Bureaucrats are (noting the account owner may wear other hats as well) neither mandated by the community nor technically capable of re-removing the bit now. Pedro : Chat 20:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Gee, thanks for telling me that I was under discussion. I should also note that we had this discussion before I gave up the bit and that at the time I made the decision I was under so much RL pressure I couldn't deal with anything straight. Maintaining my privacy is more important then scoring internet hit points but suffice it to say the last few months have been the most horrific of my life. If you have problems with specific actions of mine then come and tell me about it and discuss it with me. Spartaz Humbug! 03:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have sent Xeno and Duncan emails explaining why I acted like I did at the time I have up my bit. Spartaz Humbug! 03:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that people figured you started the section, so wouldn't need to be notified... –xenotalk 16:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Quite so, though if consensus here is that editors should inform the starter of a thread that they have commented within the thread about the subject of the thread, I will do so. DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think it was only an issue because of the three-day gap between the regular "death" of the thread and when you posted (or four days, if you count the time between the {{done}} tag and your comment). The only reason I read it was because I was surprised to see the "Can I have my bit back please?" section pop up on my watchlist (surprised because I knew what the section was, and that it had long since been dead). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Quite so, though if consensus here is that editors should inform the starter of a thread that they have commented within the thread about the subject of the thread, I will do so. DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see the above section and comment. –xenotalk 19:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wow. Lamest edit war ever indeed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Setting aside the lameness of the edit war, Is anyone else concerned about the initial crat error combined with the fact that he's now gone again when his error causes confusion and apparently unable to respond?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Meh... It's all sorted now. –xenotalk 15:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Until the next time. Maybe that will be another few years from now, but who knows.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've long been a proponent of removing the crat bit from some of these "legacy" bureaucrats, but when it gets suggested a great number of the "old guard" swoop in to stop the debate. And yes, before anyone asks, there is a difference between removing +sysop as against +crat through inactivity / lack of use. Still, it won't change so it's best we all move on. This particular selections of reverts was pretty WP:LAME to be fair. Pedro : Chat 19:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have no illusions of triggering a recall. However as a minimal sort of action, if one of his more active peers reached out had a frank discussion with him, it might prevent a future embarassment.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Regretfully, where I live all forms of air travel are currently not available. That includes flying pigs I would imagine. Pedro : Chat 19:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure who the old guard is you're referring to but if I recall correctly the last time de-cratting came up it was the overall community that didn't support it. I would say it doesn't matter if some group of the old guard wants something if the rest of the community wants something else. It's just a question of whether it's worth everybody's time to find out what the overall community wants. I will add that the policy for oversight was pretty simple and painless. I hadn't had a chance to use my oversight tool for about a year and I got an email saying that it would be removed if I didn't use it soon. Since I didn't foresee much extra time to make much use of it, I didn't bother, and it was removed without fuss. While I feel I did a good job and was a reasoned voice on the mailing list when I had a chance to participate, I'm confident it's doing fine without me. - Taxman Talk 20:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not refering to you Taxman before you get your knickers in a twist. User:TUF-KAT is the usual example we bring out for these debates before they get archived and forgotten. Pedro : Chat 20:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- No worry. I didn't assume you were referring to me, but even if you were, my point was it wouldn't be a big deal since if the community wanted something no small group of old guard including me should be able to stop it unless it was because of good solid reasoning. - Taxman Talk 13:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not refering to you Taxman before you get your knickers in a twist. User:TUF-KAT is the usual example we bring out for these debates before they get archived and forgotten. Pedro : Chat 20:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Bureaucrat removal, which failed mainly as a result of a Jimbo veto (I remember since I was the proposer). MBisanz talk 20:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can't be bothered to read the link Matt, as I'm simply not that interested in any of this to be honest. But if the proposal failed because of a Jimbo veto then the thought occurs that my "old guard" comment would be somewhat suprisingly accurate.....Pedro : Chat 20:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Jimbo made a comment about something else which was stretched to assume that 1) he had vetoed Bureaucrat removal, and 2) he had the right to veto such a proposal. I do not agree with either assumption. DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually it looks like it had good support, was a low key proposal. Matt ended it because of what he assumed Jimbo's comment meant and no one caused a fuss over the ending of the proposal basically because Matt started the proposal. That was about it. So it appears I remembered incorrectly. The community did seem to support it last time and it is rather similar to what goes on for many other rights like oversight and steward. Again, it's just a question of whether it's worth the time of a proposal to see again. - Taxman Talk 13:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Jimbo made a comment about something else which was stretched to assume that 1) he had vetoed Bureaucrat removal, and 2) he had the right to veto such a proposal. I do not agree with either assumption. DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can't be bothered to read the link Matt, as I'm simply not that interested in any of this to be honest. But if the proposal failed because of a Jimbo veto then the thought occurs that my "old guard" comment would be somewhat suprisingly accurate.....Pedro : Chat 20:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have no illusions of triggering a recall. However as a minimal sort of action, if one of his more active peers reached out had a frank discussion with him, it might prevent a future embarassment.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've long been a proponent of removing the crat bit from some of these "legacy" bureaucrats, but when it gets suggested a great number of the "old guard" swoop in to stop the debate. And yes, before anyone asks, there is a difference between removing +sysop as against +crat through inactivity / lack of use. Still, it won't change so it's best we all move on. This particular selections of reverts was pretty WP:LAME to be fair. Pedro : Chat 19:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Until the next time. Maybe that will be another few years from now, but who knows.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Meh... It's all sorted now. –xenotalk 15:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Setting aside the lameness of the edit war, Is anyone else concerned about the initial crat error combined with the fact that he's now gone again when his error causes confusion and apparently unable to respond?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Renaming My Account
Please! I beg you! Let me explain! The reason why I could only use A1DF67 was because my edit history in my Special:Contributions and the history pages of articles had to be attached to my account. If this account is renamed Bowei Huang 2, then my edit history is still attached, it's not dumped. If it is renamed, then I promise that I will never ever edit from User:A1DF67 again. If it is renamed, then I will still only use this account, but it has a different name. I am going to still use this account, but I just simply want it to have a different name. I know about that decision! That decision doesn't say that I can't change its name. So can you please just simply let me change its name?
A1DF67 (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- The name change was denied because it said there was 'decision made' that the user only use A1DF67, but as far as I can tell it's not so clear cut. It just says he should be restricted to one account only and actually suggested he visit WP:CHU if he wanted the name changed. –xenotalk 19:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Renaming of account
Hi. I have asked for my account to be renamed so that this name (Aliasflavius) is no longer associated with the contributions I made on some articles, because they have been changed beyond recognition. I have explained this very clearly. I don't understand why this is a problem. I have asked to have my name "Aliasflavius" changed into something else, like "Antonimator" because this way a different username will be associated with the edits, as all the contributions will be transferred on this new name, right? C'mon guys, I read all the explanations on this subject, I know this is how it works. Just please, change my name, because this is my ID on many sites and I don't want it associated with those edits on Wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasflavius (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- No need to bring this here, simply wait for a bureaucrat to fulfill Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple#Aliasflavius → Antonimator. –xenotalk 19:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
My account
I somehow suspect that there's not much you can do about this, but I'll give it a try. Basically, I was registered under the username Jhbuk, but I went on holiday on 6 April, and only came back this morning. I realised I had left a couple of GAs open, so I thought I ought to try to close them, so I created the alternate account Jhbuk2, as I didn't really want to use my main account. When I came back, I realised I'd forgotten the passwords to both accounts (I normally use that "remember me" box). When I tried to get a password sent to me via email, it came up with "no email registered". I had registered my email, and I did activate it, so the only thing I can think that's happened is that someone changed my account details as a joke when I last used it (I seem to remember I was in a cafe, and left my laptop on the table, thinking I'd turned it off, but later realising I hadn't, so that seems most plausible). I haven't experienced any other problems though. If you can't do anything, or it would be particularly difficult, then it doesn't matter (I probably won't be able to do much editing for a few months anyway), but I would quite like to get back on the account if possible. 90.199.218.174 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure but I vaguely recall seeing that developers had lent a hand in the past for situations like this. Is there any way we can verify that you are the original owner? Did you ever make an edit where you disclosed your email address, for instance? –xenotalk 17:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I still have an email in my inbox I could forward to someone if that helps. I think that I have a shared IP address BTW. Let me have a look for something. 90.199.218.174 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, according to the email: 26 February, IP address 90.199.218.214 (looks like it varies as well). 90.199.218.174 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There's not much we can do, technically -- we don't have the access to pull it off. I guess the first step would be to substantiate your ownership of the account somehow, then we could try to get a dev to do it manually, though they're busy and don't often fulfill such requests. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- If I forwarded the email to someone, could they verify that it was sent then, and then do a checkuser on the IP address? To be honest, this probably needs more effort putting in than it's worth. I would like to get back on the account ideally, but it's probably just better to make a new account. 90.199.218.174 (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd close it, but I opined :) It's pretty much a no brainer, but 'tis better that it is closed by someone else :) -- Avi (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Popped out of article space, did the deed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- What a coincidence! I opined too! Hence the nonclosingtherfaeventhoughisawitwasoverdue. (X! · talk) · @190 · 03:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)